Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case. I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market. I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around. The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth. But when you do that, it after-the-fact eliminates the idea that sometimes, on the surface, one team just does substantially better than another in a deal. I don't know. I guess I just appreciate accountability, and a simple "Wow, the Brewers blew the Padres out of the water in this deal" or "We obviously screwed up and got the value wrong, this isn't an exact science" is better than going in and retroactively adjusting the numbers. I mean, Urias is an extremely well known prospect, and has been for several years. He certainly wasn't flying under the radar in the prospect community. I don't see how changing your assigned value on a player simply based on the value he was traded for holds much water.